‘Why bother? Mr. Green and his colleagues have completely discredited themselves. Why? As I understand it Mr. Green has quoted text dealing with the preexistent state of the Son of God and His claim to being God suggesting that is commentary regarding the human Jesus of Nazareth. Mr. Green has argued himself into claiming Jesus of Nazareth preexisted his conception. The man doesn’t even realize the text he quoted is Christ’s Jesus statement is His claim to the title of God.

What an astonishing position. Indeed hyperpreterism is dead and in no small part due to the astonishing lack of logic exhibited by Mr. Green. Talk about the proverbial “open mouth insert foot”.

You might find a couple of books interesting, “The Forgotten Christ” edited by Stephen Clark and “Jesus Ascended, the Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation” by Gerritt Dawson. Both books speak directly to the issue you are contemplating.

However, in short, the dilemma the incarnation presents for the hyperpreterist community goes to a central tenet
and truth claim of Christianity. Christianity is the only religion wherein God takes on the form of man to reconcile man to the personal God. The name “Jesus” doesn’t identify the preincarnate Son of God. The name Jesus stands for Jesus of Nazareth who is very man, possessing a human body and soul, yet through the incarnation was united with the Son of God as Chalcedon defines.

If as Don Preston claims his “Jesus” returned to his prior form, that is the form of God, which is spirit as the Bible explains that necessarily means the man Jesus of Nazareth no longer exists. IOW God and man have not been reunited. However, Christianity based on the truth claims of Scripture proclaims a very different reality. That is God and man are reunited in the incarnation and due to conquering of the grave exhibited in the historical event of the resurrection of Christ Jesus has created a new humanity that will one day in the consummation of God’s redemptive plan be experienced by all the children of God. Hyperpreterism denies and attacks the central tenet of Christianity, that is God and man have been united in the continuing incarnation of Christ Jesus.

J. Gresham Machen explained that “Christain” liberalism was a different religion as opposed to Christianity. The point is, in denying the central tenet of Christianity, so to is hyperpreterism a different religion than Christianity.

God Bless,

Next, he says, “mumbo jumbo”.

Then, he still does not understand that the One Person has two separate natures, without confusion. Man, they are taking a beating….

Here is, then, his theology: when it says “his body” it was no longer, in reality, his, but just another dead body. It’s just a mere figure of speech. Then, Dave, WHY did God raise THAT body when there were plenty of other dead bodies he could have put “his spirit” in? Full Preterism is dead….

“. . . For man is going unto his eternal home, And the mourners have gone round through the street. . . . And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, And the spirit
returneth to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:5,7).

Also: As pointed out already it seems “man” is “the spirit” in the above.”

Then Mike Sullivan wrote: “Yeah, the Hebrew parallelism is very apparent – “Man goes to his eternal home” = “His spirit returns to the Lord who made it.” After man returns to the dust and his spirit returns to God – he continues to be described as a “man” and not sub-human or not “fully man” etc… ”

For reference, here are the three verses in full:

12:5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the
grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at
the cistern.

12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

I wouldn’t say those two clauses are a parallelism. As one site defined parallelism, “Parallelism is the expression of one idea in two or more different ways.” Based on the context of the clauses and on this definition, I don’t see how “man” can be considere parallel with “spirit”.

BTW, in verse 5 the words, “long home” (some versions use “eternal” or “everlasting”, etc), which the HP’s claim means “never to be resurrected”, I thought are explained well in this little snippet:

” Ecc 12:5 Adam Clarke Commentary:

Because man goeth to his long home – el beith olamo , “to the house of his age;” the place destined to receive him, when
the whole race or course of life shall be finished; for olam takes in the whole
course or duration of a thing; if applied to a dispensation, such as the Law, it takes in its whole duration; to the life of man, it takes in the whole life; to time, it includes its whole compass; to eternity, it expresses its infinite
duration. So old age terminates the olam, the complete duration of human life; and when life is no longer desired, and nutrition ceases, the olam of man is terminated. My old MS. Bible translates it, The house of his everlastingness.”
.

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/17529/eVerseID/17529/RTD/Clarke/version/nasbe

The heretics say that Jesus was raised with his body only to declare the fact of a deeper meaning of resurrection. But, why raise it all? Why couldn’t Jesus simply appear, point to his body and then say, “this is what resurrection looks like – it does not require a body”. That would solve everything! The biggest problem the heretics face is the one staring them in the face: the resurrection of THE MAN, Christ Jesus. A manifestation in substance of Jesus and his soul in one being: the man, Christ Jesus.

Thus, we must conclude that there is an inseparable relationship with our bodies, even after death, so that, on one hand we avoid the heresy of “parting up” man (which we have denied), and, on the other, the heresy of saying that man is absolutely and completely and only “soul”. There is, then, an inseparable union with the soul and the body, even though the soul is “up there” and the body is “down here”, and in this union the whole man is still that: whole. It is a union of essence, since, in order for there to be “soul” there must be “body” (conception). We know that Samuel, for example, and Moses and Elijah, appeared as spirits – alive. Yet, we also know that they (ahem, their bodies) were dead.

It would not do to say, “well, in order to get soul, we need conception, then, after conception, we no longer are identified with body, and it is discarded in the ground forever, but the full human nature resides with the soul.” But, this misses the point: the body is absolutely necessary in order to have the whole man. There is, then, even after death, an inseparable union with your body, even though, on appearances, we use terms like “up there” and “down here”. This definition of man, therefore, demands resurrection of the body (that essence of substance and form). In reality, resurrection is not to be seen as soul “reuniting” with the body (since they are inseparably united), but, rather, manifesting this union once again in terms of form and substance. This saves the definition of the whole man, and refuses to make “parts” of man between soul and spirit (which is hopelessly Platonic). This also allows for true death of “the man” (because he is so identified with his body so that we can say, “Jesus truly died”), yet, also, we can say, “Jesus, the whole Jesus, entered heaven when he commended his spirit to God”. We can say this because the whole is never separated in terms of its essential union, even though the body is dead and the “soul” is in heaven.

I guess we just have to take Dave at his word. :o)

Sam, I think this definition fits what you’ve spelled out, “a disembodied soul; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness”

God Bless,

Unfortunately, this is just ONE example of Dave not accepting his opponents “clarifications”. He has done it many times.

As I have been known to say, “Don’t put words in my mouth because I can do a darned good job of saying the wrong thing all on my own.”

LOL

He is a man with no physical form. A true man with no physical form. I’ll just let that one stand on its own for the sheer absurdity of it.

I understand someone is attempting to rewrite history claiming Mr. Preston really didn’t mean what he claimed at poin 6:20 of Q&A on this recording, http://forchristandculture.com/2012/10/16/future-kingdom-conference-audio/

Sorry, but rewriting history won’t work. Mr. Preston claimed his Jesus is no longer a man merely retaining the memory of what it was like to be a man. No sophist spin can rewrite what Mr. Preston clearly stated, albeit devastating to the hyperpreterist cause.

God Bless

Yeah, i was waiting for someone to ask about that. haha. I’m aware of the older use of that label, as you have pointed out. But it is also being used to describe the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” crowd that has cropped up as of late…those who merely latch on to the five points of calvinism and then think that makes them “Reformed”; particularly among Baptists.

The only question I have is who is intended by “Neo-Calvinists”. In the recent Two Kingdoms (2K) debate/discussion, it is usually used by 2K advocates to describe Kuyperian/Dutch (sometimes Neo-Reformed, or another moniker, “Dominionist”) Calvinists. Frame is certainly of that persuasion (featured here in a discussion on this very topic), and I assumed I guess that Talbot was of like mind. Other advocates from the Dutch tradition would include Albert Wolters, Michael Goheen, Cornelius Plantinga, Chris Wright, Cornelis Venema, et al.

Thanks for any clarification!

James

I think that is exactly where he is coming from. He conceded he isn’t claiming he is an orthodox Christian, which frankly given the normal practice of the leaders of hyperpreterism was refreshing. I mean at least he acknowledge he is outside the boundaries that define what Christianity proclaims.

God Bless,

While i can’t confirm that Ward actually left the comment, the link in the comment was real. Ward has an entire article on it.

Ward appears to be another Wiki scholar. Absolutely clueless, with grandiose claims that no protestant has refuted him thus far.

Ummm, Ward, maybe the reason why no protestants have responded is because barely any protestants read your garbage. Did you ever consider that? Your website has an Alexa rating of almost 14 million. Translate: Barely anyone visits your site.

Get over yourself. And in case i didn’t make myself clear the first couple of times after you posted vulgarities here anonymously; you’re not welcomed here. I don’t give a platform to habitual liars, slanderers, and false teachers who pose as Methodist ministers to dupe a denomination out of a building.

Your wiki research has already been dismantled a thousand times over throughout church history.

Bug off.

Nestorianism, Mass Executions, and Sex Offenders? Lies.

Death to Unbelievers? Lie.

End to the Universe? Lie.

I think Dave Gangreen’s nose would grow if he ever told a truth.

Rofl…..this is ACTUALLY what they think about us. Remember the term I used, “caricature”? They believe the caricature of what they have imagined, and for them, made it reality. Thanks for the confirmation.

Love the cartoon. :o)

This can be a confusing statement. Yet, taken all together (in context) it describes perfectly how we are to understand the mystery of the two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, the two natures are without mixture or confusion (they didn’t merge or meld together or into one nature). Yet, on the other hand, they are without division or separated. How can that be?

Obviously that is where the hypostatic union comes into the picture. The two natures are UNITED in the one person of Jesus Christ in a way that doesn’t end up confusing or mixing them into one nature yet at the same time the two natures cannot be divided or separated because they are now united in one unbreakable subsistence (i.e. hypostasis).

I can see how this would be an issue for the HP view since they must somehow deal with Jesus’ body not entering heaven.

BTW, this also seems to provide an answer for how things worked on the cross when Jesus died. If the two natures are without mixture or confusion, yet they are also unbreakably united (cannot be divided or separate), then in this same “hypostatic sense” we must say that God (the divine nature of Jesus Christ) was with Jesus when he died, after he died and until he resurrected. Not in the sense that God died, but that their union was not broken throughout the process.

This whole conversation has been so educational! :o)

One of the great crises in evangelical Christianity today is a lack of understanding about the person of Christ. Almost every time I watch Christian television, I hear one of the classical creeds of the Christian faith being denied blatantly, unknowingly, unwittingly. And of course, part of the reason is that it is so difficult for us to understand how one person can have two natures. You are asking me the question “How?” I don’t know how; I know that Jesus is one person with two natures. How can that be? Long before there was a human nature, there was a second person of the Trinity. Here the second person of the Trinity, very God of very God, God himself, was able to take upon himself a human nature. No human being could reverse the process and take upon himself a divine nature. I cannot add deity to my humanity. It’s not as if Christ changed from deity into humanity. That’s what I hear all the time. I hear that there was this great eternal God who suddenly stopped being God and became a man. That’s not what the Bible teaches. The divine person took upon himself a human nature. We really can’t understand the mystery of how this happened. But it is conceivable, certainly, that God, with his power, can add to himself a human nature and do it in such a way as to unite two natures in one person. The most important council about this in the history of the church, whose decision has stood for centuries as the model of Christian orthodoxy and is embraced by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Baptists— virtually every branch of Christendom—is the Council of Chalcedon. It was held in the year 451, in which the church confessed its belief about Jesus in this way: They said that we believe that Jesus is verus homus, verus Deus— truly man, truly God. Then they went on to set boundaries for how we’re to think about the way in which these two natures relate to each other. They said that these two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation. When we think about the Incarnation, we don’t want to get the two natures mixed up and think that Jesus had a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature. We can distinguish them, but we can’t tear them apart because they exist in perfect unity.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/how-can-person-have-divine-nature-and-human-nature/

——

That is exactly what Dr Talbot means by keeping the natures “separate”. Jesus did not have a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature.

And yes, Dave Gangreen is dense.

Talbot believes that the human nature of Jesus existed before the Incarnation? Rofl…..

“…he did not yet distinguish the words (person), (substance), and (nature) as later theologians did, he did not hesitate to speak of “two natures” in Christ while occasionally saying that “out of two natures” Christ had become one, that in fact he is one nature and that the divine and human natures have united in him “into one thing,”.”into one being.” This was open to misunderstanding and in fact misunderstood by Eutyches, according to whom, after and through the union, each of the two natures lost its own peculiar properties, and they were changed and transformed into one new divine-human nature.” (Reformed Dogmatics, Sin and Salvation in Christ, Vol. 3, Herman Bavinck, John Bolt editor, pg. 302,303)

This is the issue with the heretics who claim Jesus is now “something that is spirit” or simply a memory of what it was like to be a man. After all the heretics Jesus no longer has that unique peculiar property of human nature, the human body. What Mr. Green fails to comprehend is that the distinction between the two united natures remains just that “distinct” as Dr. Bavinck put it or without “confusion” as Chalcedon put it or “separate” as Dr. T explained. Were not this the case then the Divine nature would have changed by taking on the “peculiar properties” of the human nature. Not that, as Nestorianism would suggest distinct in that the two natures are separated into two persons, only united through a “moral” union but rather that the two natures are “unmixed” not “blended”, “unconfused” indeed “separate”. Dr. Bavinck explains, “this union can only be conceived as a union of the person of the Son with an impersonal human nature.” (ibid, 305)

The irony is the heretics who have confused the natures are, what can only be explained as, intentionally missing the point. However, when you realize they’ve been exposed for advocating a Christiological heresy over 1500 years old, what else can they do but level false charges. They realize there view is nothing but damaged goods.

Yep!

AND, if the same person who spoke in those terms ALSO affirmed the hypostatic union of the two natures, i.e. that the two natures are mystically united in the ONE person of Jesus Christ….

Then any claim that that person is a Nestorian would necessarily be false.

We, then, following
the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in
manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and
consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us,
without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead,
and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,
Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably,
indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken
away by the unity, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and
concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two
persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord
Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him,
and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy
Fathers has handed down to us.”

Let us note where the Hyper Preterist radically differ with this Creed (which, by the way Dr. Talbot affirms.

First, note the present definition of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. He is (not was) of a “reasonable soul and body.” This is denied by the heretics. They have, then, a different Jesus in terms of definitions. Now, we noted earlier that God has “no body, no parts”. Yet, clearly, Jesus did (and does). How do we square this?

Jesus is One Person (the Logos, who is God) and two natures (divine and human). The human nature was “concieved”, is not “eternal”. The human nature was “born”. These two natures occur in the One Person, not parted or “divided into two persons” (against Nestorianism).

The two natures of Christ are “without confusion”, They are two separate distinct natures, and are not to be mixed (comingled). However, they (the two natures) are not separated from the One Person. The One Person and the Two Natures are inseparable, however, the two natures themselves are, in fact, not to be mingled (separated).

We may note, also, the phrase, “in these latter days”. Here, the phrase is taken to mean the whole centuries up to their time, 451 AD. We may here understand that ‘last days” does not have to mean “a few short years are left”. It can span the entire Christian age. But, that’s a side note.

The fact of the matter is that by denying the body of Jesus today, “in heaven”, the heretics are no longer dealing with the same definition of Jesus, defined as consisting in a body with a soul – a human being. Thus, when they refer to “human nature”, they do not mean what we mean.

And, their continued smears against orthodoxy, when they themselves parade around as if they are the true orthodox, is downright laughable.

I understand Robin finally decided to validate what Mr. Green has been alleging and confronted him explaining Nestorious wasn’t a heretic after all. I understand Robin also wondered if Dr. T has affirmed, as Nestorious did, Chalcedon’s definition of the God-man as two natures united in one Person.

Evidently the significance of Dr. T’s explicit statement regarding
Christ Jesus was missed. As pointed out, Dr. T explained,

“Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man in a proper hypostatic union. It (the two natures) is never blended but separate.”

The term Dr. T employed “hypostatic union” or “hypostasis”
describes, “…the one unified personality of Christ the Son in his two natures, human and divine.” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Everett F. Harrison, Baker, pg. 275)

Thus Mr. Green’s allegations against Dr. T for advocating “Nestorianism” i.e. two persons, are utterly false. Mr. Green has been shown to have been ignorant over the issues and is clearly guilty of fabrication a false charge. This of course is why no one takes the man seriously. Nor is Mr. Green honest enough to explain to his readers the basis upon which Dr. Bavinck explains Christ Jesus is due worship. Were he to explain to Robin Dr. Bavinck’s explanation it would only lead to more egg on his face.

That’s interesting, did Mr. Bennett explain why John Owen and the Puritans aren’t reformed as they explicitly added postmillennial language to their Reformed creed?

BTW, Loranie Boettner explains, “We have said that each of the millennial views has been held by men of unquestioned sincerity and ability. Among Postmillennialists should be mentioned first of all the great Augustine, whose eminently sound interpretation of Scripture set the standard for the Church for nearly a thousand years. In later times there were Rev. David Brown, a Scotch Presbyterian minister, and a considerable number of systematic theologians, the Hodges at Princeton (Drs. Charles, Archibald A., and Caspar Waster Hodge, Jr., the latter having been the writer’s revered teacher), Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, Dr. Robert L. Dabney, Dr. Henry B. Smith, Dr, Augustus H. Strong, and Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. Probably the most influential books from the postmillennial viewpoint have been The Second Advent, by David Brown (1848, revised 1849), which for many years was recognized as the standard work on the subject, and Dr. Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (1871). In more recent times Dr. Warfield (died, 1921) has been recognized as the outstanding postmillennial theologian. His influence was exerted through a period of more than thirty- three years as Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary and as Editor of the Presbyterian and Reformed Review and later as one of the chief contributors to the Princeton Theological Review. A book by Dr. James H. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord (1919), has proved to be of special value.”

Is it Mr. Bennett’s position Charles Hodge wasn’t reformed?

Evidently after realizing Nestorious didn’t teach a heretical position the RINO’s have back peddled once again restating their position claiming Dr. T does not advocate Nestorious’ position. However, the orthodox view as explained by Dr. T., Harold O.J. Brown, Dr. Bavinck, etc. appears to still confuse Mr. Green who is having difficulties with the concept related to the two natures of “no mixture”, aka “unconfusedly” aka “unmingled” aka “separate”.

What an embarrassment this false charge has turned out to be for the RINO’s.

I understand the critics of Dr. T are now basing their allegations on “memory” of what was said without documentation. At least that way the critic can exit the
discussion without losing face when it is demonstrated he misrepresented what was in fact actually stated. Anyway the critic writes,

“In one of Talbot’s sermons (I can’t remember which one) he defended Nestorius by portraying him as misunderstood. Talbot implied that Nestorius was not a heretic.”

Well at least the critic admits his memory is faulty. I’m not sure what statement, if any, the critic has in mind. Perhaps Dr. T was citing Harold O.J. Brown as a source. Dr. Brown formerly of Harvard explains,

“Nestorious taught that two natures of Christ fall together in one prosopon. The Greek word is ambiguous: by it, Nestorious apparently meant one person, which would be quite orthodox, but his opponents understood him to be saying one appearance, and thus to be speaking of only an apparent unity between the divine and the human in Christ. Nestorious held that the Logos was indissolubly united with the human personality from the moment of conception. There was, however, no transformation or mixture of the natures, there is a single Son. These entirely orthodox views were first attacked from Alexandria,…” (Heresies, Heresy and Orthodoxy In the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown, Hapers, pg. 174) And of course C. Fitzsimmons Allison points out of Nestorious, “Weighty evidence has caused modern scholar to raise serious questions as to whether Nestorious was himself actually Nestorian.” (The Cruelty of Heresy, An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy, C. Fitzsimmons Allison, Morehouse Publishing, pg. 121)

Once again we find the critic uninformed on the subject, which isn’t all that
surprising. BTW, are you aware of the critic Mr. Green making known to his colleagues the BASIS Dr. Bavinck claims is the justification for worshipping Christ Jesus? It appears Mr. Green has gone silent with that question. Maybe, this is another case as with that of Nestorious where he failed to do the proper research before making a claim. You would think after all of the faux pas’ Mr. Green has hoisted onto his readers he would cease and desist from making more, he just continues to demonstrate he doesn’t know what it is he is talking
about.

Take those Beyond Creation Science full preterists. They make Genesis into a mere covenantal (i.e. not historical) discourse and you are left with having no authoritative statement from God as to who created trees.

This is pure deception. Does Green now affirm, with Chalcedon and Orthodoxy, that “the man, Christ Jesus” is in his human body, the self same body, in heaven today? I.E., the “continuing Incarnation”? If he does not, then the above statement is totally false. It is also false because Talbot is not a Nestorian. He does not affirm that Jesus us two PERSONS. No. We have on record that Green believes that Jesus is now “something that is spirit” (without his glorified earthy body), and with Preston that Jesus retains merely the “memory” of once being human. Pure deception. And Green knows it.

Like our first parents, we fall for the idea that it is ours to be like God. After all, we long to experience all things together at once – like God. We love our hymns such as “when we all get together, what a wonderful place that will be”

God is the God of the living, not the dead. Although we very much like to think otherwise, our limited perspective, locked in time and space, is not the final judge. If we are alive to God, then we are alive. If it is real for God, then it is real.

Hence, in God’s view, Jesus is slain before the foundation of the world. In God’s view his love is always expressed through the cross; God’s human nature is eternally present to him. God never changes.

Isn’t that the truth!

In one case the answer is “something that is spirit” and in the other case, “nothing more than a memory”.

Someone said you said this.
I didn’t say that. What I said was this.
Oh, well that’s Westminster Confession.
Right.
So, who is this Green guy?
A heretic.
rofl…….

Get it, Dave?

I’m told it’s been pointed out,

“What YOU (Sam) don’t get it that ISN’T what Talbot said.”

Yet as anyone can hear for themselves Dr. T explicitly said,

“Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man in a proper hypostatic union. It (the two natures) is never blended but separate.”

I do believe the above statement of Dr. T represents what you said he said, doesn’t it? I’m not sure how it is Dr. T didn’t say what you said he said, when it is on record he said exactly what you said he said.

I’m wondering when you will be requested to provide some “gum, gum”!

You were also asked,

“Why do you think he (Talbot) got phones calls making inquiries?”

Evidently the idea has yet to dawn on the minds of those struggling to make something stick that someone wanted to find out who it was that was making such crazy allegations. Afterall the record is clear, Dr. T said, “Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man in a proper hypostatic union. It (the two natures) is never blended but separate.” I’m sure anyone after hearing the statement of Dr. T’s in light of the false accusation would inquire with Dr. T if he knew anything about his accusers.

After all, the tools in the shed making the false allegations don’t appear to be very sharp!

At Criswell Don K. Preston, due to the answers he provided the esteemed panel regarding his Christology torpedo the “Full” aka hyperpreterist cause exposing the underlying heresy of the view. Now, Mr. Green in his own indubitable manner has done the same thing. I’m told Mr. Green whose Jesus “is something that is spirit” and a colleague of Mr. Don K. Preston whose Jesus only maintains the memory of what it was like to be a man has offered this statement from Dr. Bavinck not realizing how the statement damns his own position.

“For those who with . . . Nestorius separate [the deityof Christ] from his human nature, . . . all ground for the worship of the mediator vanishes.” (page 316)

Mr. Green, who has transformed the human nature of the God-man into the nature of spirit doesn’t understand the implication of Dr. Bavinck’s statement albeit represented only in part through the use of his favorite editing tool the “ellipse”. This is the very point we’ve been making all along. Mr. Green’s Jesus “mediator”, who is now, “something that is spirit” or as in the case of Don K. Preston who is simply a “memory” of what it was like to be a man has in fact “vanished”.

However, the irony of providing the quote of Dr. Bavinck’s which damns his own view doesn’t end here. As they say, out of the mouth of babes! As it turns out one of my fans who doesn’t seem to stop and think before she posts has replied to Mr. Green pointing out the implication of the partial quote of Dr. Bavinck’s Mr. Green has provided,

“that explains it ALL….they have “NO ground” for worshiping the whole Jesus because a “separate” “part” of Him is non-God.”

Once again the heretics have hoisted themselves upon their own petard. Apparently my fan recognizes the implication of denying the full humanity of Christ remains in hypostatic union with the divine nature. Thus the implication of this denial on the heretics own stated Christologial position goes to the heart of the argument. The implication of one whose position stipulates the God man no longer exists as in the vanishing of His humanity into “something that is spirit” which is Mr. Green stated position or is just a “memory” as with Mr Preston therefore means their mediator ceased to exist. My fan has unwittingly, no doubt, just condemned herself by pointing the out the implication of her and her colleagues Jesus who is no longer “whole”. Indeed, out of the mouth of babes!

As I’ve indicated, I’m really not writing their replies for them, but it couldn’t get any better were that the case.

I’m told Mr. Green who repented of his deception by removing
the term “unconfusedly” from Chalcedon and provided a quote from the great theologian Herman Bavinck which include the term “unmingled” has respond once again. The problem though is that while Mr. Green has included the term “unmingled” he has chosen to ignore the import of the word. Mr. Green writes,

So Talbot says “A” (the two natures ARE separate) and Bavinck says “non-A” (the two natures are NOT separate), and for
Talbot/Gates, that means Bavinck and Talbot are saying “the exact same thing”!”

Actually what we demonstrated is that Dr. T explains the two natures, divine and human are “separate” as in “unmingled” united in the God-man Jesus of Nazareth. And Dr. Bavinck like Dr. T explains the two natures, divine and human are “unmingled” as in “separate” united in the Person of Christ Jesus. Thus Dr. T and Dr. Bavinck hold the same view. I’m sure by now even the most uneducated reader of the issue recognizes Mr. Green opted to
leave out the term “unmingled”. Of course we all know why Mr. Green failed to include that term. Were he to honestly deal with the concepts he would be forced to admit he was run through by his very own petard.

Folks, I think I could demonstrate Mr. Green’s dishonesty with the written record in just about every one of the paragraphs he offers up to the reading public. Frankly, Mr. Green’s intellectually dishonesty is boring. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Mr. Green’s failure to answer a challenge. To frame up Mr.
Green’s reluctance to answer the question asked we first should point out is claim,

“Now “part” of Jesus’ insides were/are to be worshiped while his human soul and body were/are to be excluded from worship. (This of course makes the “union” of God and Jesus essentially no different than the union of God and a believer.)”

Mr. Green should have paid attention to that term Dr. Bavinck’s, “unmingled”, he removed from the discussion. For one to worship the “insides” of the human nature of the God man the two natures would seem to have been “mingled” a position which is rank heresy though it is a position Mr. Green appears to be upholding. Needless to say, we asked Mr. Green to inform his readers the basis Dr. Bavinck explains for worshipping Christ.

However, rather than answering the question asked, Mr. Green
obfuscates the issue by offering up a quote that doesn’t deal with the basis for worshipping Christ. Folks, there is a reason Mr. Green didn’t answer the question asked, especially in light of his
quote, “”part” of Jesus’ insides were/are to be worshiped”. Were he to honestly address the question asked his readers would have realized that petard of his would have struck him twice.

I won’t be surprised if Mr. Green’s readers, the few that there are, let him off the hook. I doubt they want to know who their bedfellows are. Ignorance is bliss I’m told.

Perhaps Mr. Green learned a lesson after misrepresenting Chalcedon. As you will recall when Mr. Green initially leveled his false charge of Nestorianism against Dr. T he intentionally removed the term “unconfusedly” from the creed leading his readers to assume the creed contemplated the “blending” of the divine and human natures of the God man. Too bad for Mr. Green’s ignorant readers he didn’t correctly represent the creed the first time. Had Mr. Green been honest with the creed it would have spared some readers embarrassment.

However I’m told now, based on his representation of Dr. Bavinck’s explanation of the creed Mr. Green has amended his deceptive ways choosing this time to leave within the quote the term “unmingled” which conveys the same concept as “unconfusedly”. I understand Mr. Green has offered his readers the following quote in support of his fallacious charge against Dr. T.

“At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 [the church] stated that the one person of Christ consisted of two natures, unchanged and unmingled (against Eutyches), and not separated nor divided (against Nestorius). . . . ”

However, Mr. Green’s deceptive ways continue. Based the term “separated” in the above quote Mr. Green is attempting to suggest Dr. T is advocating Nestorianism for explaining the two natures of the God – man, divine and human are “separate” as in “unmingled” as in never “blended”. Based on the quote above Mr. Green claims Dr. T and Dr. Bavinck are not in agreement yet Mr. Green conveys Dr. T’s position as, “The God and the man must, in that hypostatic union, always remain separate.”

I’m not sure how Mr. Green could have missed the import ofthe term “hypostatic union” employed by Dr. T for that is the concept Dr. Bavinck is conveying when, in the quote above offered by Mr. Green, Bavinck explains, “the one person of Christ”. The fact that Dr. Bavinck and Dr. T are saying the exact same thing is borne out by what Dr. T actually did say which is, “Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man in a proper hypostatic union. It (the two natures) is never blended but separate.” Evidently Mr. Green doesn’t understand what the term “unmingled” means.

We’ve caught Mr. Green quote mining before, but here again the deceptive tactic of his raises its ugly head. Mr. Green failed to take into consideration how Dr. Bavinck employed the term “separated” in the context within the quote. Dr. T’s use of the term “separate” isn’t used to suggest a Nestorian two persons but to explain the two natures are never blended, what Dr. Bavinck conveys as “unmingled”. Thus Mr. Green is hoisted onto his own petard by providing the quote from Dr. Bavinck’s which affirms Dr. T’s position.

Dr. Bavinck agrees with Dr. T.! The two natures joined in hypostatic union in
the Person of Christ Jesus are never blended but “separate”. Boy I bet those readers of Mr. Green are wishing he would have been honest with them from the start. And while the subject never comes up directly during the sermon of Dr. T’s Mr. Green references, the fact Dr. T employed the term “proper hypostatic union” excludes the possibility of two persons, thereby negating the idea of Nestorianism. This of course is the reason no legitimate scholar has supported Mr. Green in his charge of Nestorianism against Dr. T. The moment Mr. Green informs them of his claim, based on the kind of evidence he has used thus far it becomes manifestly obvious he doesn’t understand what it is he is talking about as he regularly demonstrates for the reading public the most recent being his missing the import of the term “unmingled”.

However, I do hope Mr. Green continues reading Dr. Bavinck’s dogmatic. Should Mr. Green move beyond in the text a couple of more pages he will uncover a section dealing with the Worship of Christ. Perhaps Mr. Green will report back to his followers what the great theologian Dr. Bavinck explains of those who deify the man Jesus of Nazareth. I’m sure Mr. Green’s readers will be puzzled by their bed fellows. However, after Mr. Green makes what is sure to be an astonishing announcement I trust he will move on to the Reformed point of view on the subject and explain to his readers what is in fact the basis for worship, once again confirming the orthodox position of Dr. T. I’m sure all of Mr. Green’s readers will appreciate his honest clarification of the issue.

This is from Dorothy.This is from a response to the trinity denying Robin says: “Sam may prefer a 1500 year old confession about the dual nature of God in Christthat makes the Trinity into a plurality of gods yet forever leaves the Man
Christ Jesus still separate and independent according to His human nature – but/

which now makes for 4 Persons doesn’t it